The presiding judge told counsel he has not decided the admissibility of the Independent Forensic Team report or evidence related to an earlier 2018 circuit‑court lake‑level adjudication but that both matters present live and important evidentiary questions the court will resolve after briefing and argument.

On the IFT report, the plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the independent forensic team’s report; the judge observed that plaintiffs’ own experts have referenced the IFT work and said he is "perplexed on how someone is able to testify as an expert...if now we're not going to give the benefit of the fact finder being able to listen to probing exam on the drawing basis when there's been an affirmative acknowledgment multiple times of the reference and the application of the IFT." The judge declined to issue an advisory ruling but said he wanted briefing and in‑person oral argument.

On the lake‑level matter, defendants seek to exclude evidence relating to a 2018 circuit‑court adjudication about lake levels. The judge asked whether the issue had been pleaded and whether doctrines such as collateral estoppel or res judicata would apply, again reserving decision pending argument and briefing. He said the court of appeals and the state supreme court have previously addressed related procedural steps in the case (Court of Appeals opinion dated Sept. 7, 2023; Supreme Court action in Dec. 2023), which bears on the scope of admissible evidence.

The court scheduled in‑person oral argument on pretrial motions, including these two issues, for Dec. 5, 2025. The judge expressed a preference for in‑person argument for issues of this magnitude and told counsel he would "give you the chance to, you know, tell me why I'm wrong" at that hearing. No evidentiary rulings were made during the status conference itself. The judge noted that his preliminary observations were intended to help counsel prioritize time in the 67 days before trial rather than to serve as advisory rulings.

Parties agreed to present arguments on Dec. 5 and will follow the court’s subsequent scheduling instructions; the judge said he may rule after oral argument but reiterated that a higher court’s decision on leave or a stay could change the trial timetable and related pretrial disposition.